Southern Maryland Online - Serving Calvert, Charles, & St. Mary's Counties.  Click here to go to the Front Page of somd.com.
 
| Write Us | Help | Sponsors | Classifieds | Employment | Forums | MarketPlace | Calendar | Headlines | Announcements | Weather | More... |


Go Back   Southern Maryland Community Forums > General Interest > Politics
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Wireless

Politics Democrat, Republican, Independent.  Liberal or conservative.  We're talking politics here!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-10-2008, 03:02 PM   #31 (permalink)
Strung Out
 
Larry Gude's Avatar
 
Member Since: Feb 2001
Posts: 23,801
Yup...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruzilla View Post
Perot was able to really tap into that desire for change.
...
Quote:
In June, Perot led the national public opinion polls with support from 39% of the voters (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton).[
UFB.
__________________
"I really don't give a fat babys butt who he picks....I'm still not voting for him even if he picks me."

Duponster
Larry Gude is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Add post to Facebook
[ Reply w/Quote ]
Old 06-10-2008, 03:06 PM   #32 (permalink)
Registered User
 
This_person's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Gude View Post
...

UFB.
Perot had a message, and experience in running a huge company (from the ground up, if I remember correctly?). His message wasn't "change", it was "change to this, and here's how and why"

Ultimately, I believe it was dirty politics on Bill and Hillary's part, combined with a poor TV image for himself and his running mate, that did him in. The Clinton's scared the living crap out of him, made him think it was the GOP doing it, and slid in with barely 40% of the vote.
__________________
Judge of a man by his questions rather than by his answers. Voltaire (1694 - 1778)
This_person is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Add post to Facebook
[ Reply w/Quote ]
Old 06-10-2008, 03:08 PM   #33 (permalink)
Registered User
 
This_person's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Gude View Post
...all speculation. I happen to think you are right about fundamentalist Muslim attacks on US interests and Bush had just about closed the gap at the end of the race until Lawrence Walsh released his little leaks with two weeks to go, but, it is what it is.

Bush lost by 5 million. Perot got nearly 20 million. 90 million voted in 1988. 100 million voted in 1992, so, some of Perots support was first timers. In any event, it's one of the odder elections in our history with some rather large 'what ifs'.
HUGE what ifs, I agree. I also agree it's only speculation, but we have hindsight of what GHWB and WJC did to go by.
__________________
Judge of a man by his questions rather than by his answers. Voltaire (1694 - 1778)
This_person is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Add post to Facebook
[ Reply w/Quote ]
Old 06-10-2008, 03:11 PM   #34 (permalink)
Bruzilla
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by This_person View Post
Perot had a message, and experience in running a huge company (from the ground up, if I remember correctly?). His message wasn't "change", it was "change to this, and here's how and why"

Ultimately, I believe it was dirty politics on Bill and Hillary's part, combined with a poor TV image for himself and his running mate, that did him in. The Clinton's scared the living crap out of him, made him think it was the GOP doing it, and slid in with barely 40% of the vote.

Perot was on track to win until he dropped out and then started raving about a Bush conspiracy to attack him. Speaking personally, I quit supporting him in 1993 when my United We Stand America newsletter started coming with a ton of AARP, travel, and other advertisements. We were supposed to be getting away from this sort of nonsense, and it looked like UWSA was just another marketing campaign.

What Perot tapped into was a desire for a change away from political nonsense. How many times do you hear someone saying "if I ran my budget or my company the way the government is run, I would be broke or in jail!" That was the sentiment that drew people to Perot.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Add post to Facebook
[ Reply w/Quote ]
Old 06-10-2008, 03:24 PM   #35 (permalink)
Registered User
 
This_person's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruzilla View Post
What Perot tapped into was a desire for a change away from political nonsense. How many times do you hear someone saying "if I ran my budget or my company the way the government is run, I would be broke or in jail!" That was the sentiment that drew people to Perot.
Exactly - H.Ross had a demonstratable history of success in an executive position.

Barry has - nothing. Very little history, none of it successful for others (just for him).
__________________
Judge of a man by his questions rather than by his answers. Voltaire (1694 - 1778)
This_person is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Add post to Facebook
[ Reply w/Quote ]
Old 06-10-2008, 03:28 PM   #36 (permalink)
Strung Out
 
Larry Gude's Avatar
 
Member Since: Feb 2001
Posts: 23,801
Nah...

Quote:
Originally Posted by This_person View Post

Ultimately, I believe it was dirty politics on Bill and Hillary's part, combined with a poor TV image for himself and his running mate, that did him in. The Clinton's scared the living crap out of him, made him think it was the GOP doing it, and slid in with barely 40% of the vote.
...I think it is commonly accepted that he had it in for HW and all he really wanted was to make sure he lost.
__________________
"I really don't give a fat babys butt who he picks....I'm still not voting for him even if he picks me."

Duponster
Larry Gude is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Add post to Facebook
[ Reply w/Quote ]
Old 06-10-2008, 03:31 PM   #37 (permalink)
Bruzilla
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by This_person View Post
Exactly - H.Ross had a demonstratable history of success in an executive position.

Barry has - nothing. Very little history, none of it successful for others (just for him).
And let's not forget about the guy behind door number two! What the heck has McCain accomplished that is of note? His dad and grandpap got him through the Navy. His step-dad got him elected to the Congress, and guys like Keating got him into the Senate. McCain-Feingold? McCain-Kennedy? The Gang of 14? Not exactly a record of note either. 99% of McCain's being a household name is based on his Useful Idiot status as the one Republican the media could always count on to come out and bash Bush for the past eight years.

Vote Barr!
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Add post to Facebook
[ Reply w/Quote ]
Old 06-10-2008, 03:31 PM   #38 (permalink)
Registered User
 
This_person's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Gude View Post
...I think it is commonly accepted that he had it in for HW and all he really wanted was to make sure he lost.
If that was his goal, he accomplished it!
__________________
Judge of a man by his questions rather than by his answers. Voltaire (1694 - 1778)
This_person is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Add post to Facebook
[ Reply w/Quote ]
Old 06-10-2008, 03:33 PM   #39 (permalink)
Bruzilla
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Gude View Post
...I think it is commonly accepted that he had it in for HW and all he really wanted was to make sure he lost.
I've heard that speculation a lot over the years, along with the reason he wanted Bush to lose was because Perot was upset that Bush "armed" Saddam Hussein. The later rumour is hogwash, so I'm guessing the former is as well. I would find it more believeable if Perot had stayed out of the race after he quit, but he came back in.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Add post to Facebook
[ Reply w/Quote ]
Reply




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:36 PM.



| Home | Help | Contact Us | About somd.com | Privacy | Advertising | Sponsors | Newsletter |

| What's New | What's Cool | Top Rated | Add A Link | Mod a Link | Link to Us |

| Announcements | Bookstore | Chat | Calendar | Classifieds | Community |
| Contests & Surveys | Culture | Dating | Dining | Education | Employment | Entertainment |
| Forums | Free E-Mail | Games | Gear! | Government | Guestbook | Health | Marketplace | Mortgage | News |
| Organizations | Photos | Postcard | Real Estate | Relocation | Sports | Survey | Travel | Wiki | Weather | Worship |

Brought to you by Virtually Everything, Inc.   ©1996-2008, All rights reserved.


SEO by vBSEO 3.1.0 ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.